[EM] Oops! IRV.

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Sat Apr 14 16:13:12 PDT 2012

I choke when I see IRV called "fine" - it too easily ignores parts of  
what the voters say.  For example, look at what can happen with A  
being much liked, yet IRV not always noticing:

20 A
20 B>A
22 C>A
Joe ?

Condorcet would see A elected by 62 votes (plus, perhaps, Joe's  
63rd).  IRV would be affected by Joe's vote:
.     A - 63 votes with B and C discarded.
.     B - 22 for C after 20A and 21B&20A discarded.
.     C - 23 votes with A and B discarded.


On Apr 14, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> I said:
> "With an electorate that doesn't need FBC, and who are clear and  
> honest
> with themselves about
> what they consider to be acceptable--that's when and how FBC can be a
> fine method.
> "...because it is entirely defection-proof, and because it meets the
> Mutual Majority Criterion."
> Of couse, when I said "FBC" the 2nd time, near he end of that 1st  
> paragraph, I meant "IRV".
> Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list